Members of the Politburo are rarely praised for their dancing skills, but consider Xi Jinping's almost flawless execution of the political two-step: first casting himself as the voice of liberal moderation in the face of Bo Xilai's mass propaganda, and then draping himself in the mantle of Maoist China and the Communist Revolution once his position was secure. The changes are enough to prompt anyone to ask: how exactly did this happen and does it even make sense?

Today on Sinica we take a look at the political movement some academics are calling Neo-Maoists, the traditionally conservative politicians and Party members whose influence began eroding with market reforms in the 1980s but have arguably witnessed a comeback of sorts in the last two years. In conversation with Jude Blanchette, former Assistant Director of the 21st century China program at UCSD, now with the Conference Board, Kaiser and Jeremy take a look at the history of the movement, who the major players are today, and how it is playing out in the Chinese media. Also, we pick our favorite upcoming events from the Beijing Literary Festival. [standalone mp3 link] [sinica rss feed]

The most stupid thing that can be said about Xi JinPing is that he is bringing back some kind of Maoist style of Government. When did Mao meet with various countries such as Ireland like Xi JingPing is doing? Xi is open to western ideas, in fact Xi JinPing is helping other nations develop high speed rail, when did Mao sign agreements with the Czech Republic on Nuclear Power. I love Pop Up Chinese because of the Chinese lessons but the politics are ridiculous. Some academics sitting in their ivory towers in California don't know what they are talking about.

While Kaiser may have been educated at UC Berkley, it might be pushing it a bit to call him an "academic sitting in [an] ivory tower..." He's lived in China for somewhere around 20 years, and both Jeremy Goldkorn and David Moser are in the same neighborhood in terms of amount of time spent in China. Your brief post and choice of only two (somewhat strange) examples seem to indicate the lack of any real argument here - while it is certainly true that the Maoist era was characterized by a limited engagement without the outside world, and particularly the West, it is a bit silly to suggest that any argument for a return to Mao-era styles of government necessarily include such isolationism as a concomitant. Try addressing the actual discussion.

The bottom line is that China will never ever return to the way Mao ran the country period. It is absurd to even try and insinuate such an idea. Xi JinPing is not Mao, end of story. China has too much at stake economically and one of the main characteristics of Mao's government was the lack of modern technology and innovation which is directly related to Mao's fanaticism---- doing things like banning Classical music. The AIIB is a perfect example of something that would never exist in the economy of Mao ZeDong. The Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank is pretty much the exact opposite of what Mao would have ever have come up with. This is a quote from Xi JinPing at the UN does this sound like Mao ZeDong to you

Civilizations have come in different colors, and such diversity has made exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations relevant and valuable, just as the sunlight has seven colors our world is a place of dazzling colors. ...

"A single flower does not make spring, while one hundred flowers in full blossom bring spring to the garden," "If there were only one kind of flower in the world, people will find it boring no matter how beautiful it is.

The Chinese civilization, though born on the soil of China, has come to its present form through constant exchange and mutual learning with other civilizations."

This is a quote from Mao ZeDong

People of the world, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs! People of the world, be courageous, and dare to fight, defy difficulties and advance wave upon wave. Then the whole world will belong to the people. Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed.

One person is open to collaboration the other is calling for the destruction of a Western Nation. I think you have to be stupid if you can't tell the difference.